Classical Zionism vs Modern (Dispensational) Zionism

[Ukorin]

Modern Zionism proposes that the Church cannot be considered as a spiritual extension of Israel, and are not in the same group as the OT saints.
They propose that Israel and the Church have two separate salvations, and will eternally be separated: Jews ruling the Millenium, and the the Church in Heaven. (There is some debate on this second point).
They hold that the OT prophecies can only be fulfilled literally, and that there is no secondary spiritual interpretation/fulfillment that can apply to the Church.

Classical Zionism views the Church as an extension of the OT saints, and a continuation of Israel in a spiritual form.
They divide the physical kingdom of Israel, and the societal/ceremonial laws, from the spiritual kingdom of Israel, and the spiritual aspect of the Law.
They propose that the prophecies given to Israel will be fulfilled physically at the return of Christ,
but are also fulfilled spiritually in the Church, and our Christian walk.

 

[Ukorin]

Classical Zionism fits both Progressive Dispensationalism, Reformed Theology, and the earliest writings of the Church all the way until Darby.

Darby gave a new interpretation, Dispensationalism, which was popularized by Scofield,
which has dominated the academic and pop culture levels of Christianity for the past few decades.
Ryrie began writing books using this theology, but reexamined his view, and came to what is called 'Progressive Dispensationalism'.

 

[Ukorin]

One of the popular bases for Classical Zionism are in understanding how we are 'grafted in' and referred to as 'included'.
This is not 'replacement', but INCLUSION.

God is faithful to fulfill His Promises to Israel,
but has now extended His Promises to all who believe.

We are may not be Abraham's natural children, and therefore have no right to the physical nature of the Promises,
but as Abraham's spiritual children, we have right to the spiritual nature of the Promises.

 

[Timeline]

[SUP][/SUP][SUP][/SUP]Ezekiel 12:21-25[SUP]
21 [/SUP]Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, [SUP]22 [/SUP]“Son of man, what is this proverb you (people) have concerning the land of Israel, saying, ‘The days are long and every vision fails’? [SUP]23 [/SUP]Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “I will make this proverb cease so that they will no longer use it as a proverb in Israel.” But tell them, “The days draw near as well as the fulfillment of every vision. [SUP]24 [/SUP]For there will no longer be any false vision or flattering divination within the house of Israel. [SUP]25 [/SUP]For I the Lord will speak, and whatever word I speak will be performed. It will no longer be delayed, for in your days, O rebellious house, I will speak the word and perform it,” declares the Lord God.’”

I take this very literally. No matter how He fulfilled it, it was fulfilled. Whether He fulfilled it physically or spiritually, or BOTH. I do realize that everything is not written out, in scripture, as we would like it to be, but I do believe that there is enough for us to be confident in the fulfillment of all vision/prophecy during the first century. All that this means is that God has already carried out His promises and that He expects us to accept His Son and live our lives in a fruitful, loving way.

 

[Ukorin]

Ezekiel 12:21-25[SUP]
21 [/SUP]Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, [SUP]22 [/SUP]“Son of man, what is this proverb you (people) have concerning the land of Israel, saying, ‘The days are long and every vision fails’? [SUP]23 [/SUP]Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “I will make this proverb cease so that they will no longer use it as a proverb in Israel.” But tell them, “The days draw near as well as the fulfillment of every vision. [SUP]24 [/SUP]For there will no longer be any false vision or flattering divination within the house of Israel. [SUP]25 [/SUP]For I the Lord will speak, and whatever word I speak will be performed. It will no longer be delayed, for in your days, O rebellious house, I will speak the word and perform it,” declares the Lord God.’”

I take this very literally. No matter how He fulfilled it, it was fulfilled. Whether He fulfilled it physically or spiritually, or BOTH. I do realize that everything is not written out, in scripture, as we would like it to be, but I do believe that there is enough for us to be confident in the fulfillment of all vision/prophecy during the first century. All that this means is that God has already carried out His promises and that He expects us to accept His Son and live our lives in a fruitful, loving way.

So you are a non-Zionist?

 

[Timeline]

I don't know what a "Zionist" is. And I don't really care beyond the ability to know what people are talking about. It is kind of difficult to have a discussion with people when I don't know a majority of the terms that they are using. I have learned a few terms/definitions from this forum. I have been told that I am a "preterist", but I have also been told that there are different types of preterists. I mainly read the bible. I rarely read commentaries, Christian books, etc. I don't have much interest in man's interpretation of scripture, especially when it doesn't seem to agree with scripture.

Again, I am not really familiar with Zionists. I do agree with some of what I have read about "dispensation" (as far as there being "periods of time"), but have not read more than the top of the page on Wikipedia. But I already thought that the bible strongly suggests periods of time. I do not, however, think that we are waiting for prophecy to be fulfilled. The Bible, imo, is self-fulfilling.

 

[Ukorin]

I don't know what a "Zionist" is. And I don't really care beyond the ability to know what people are talking about. It is kind of difficult to have a discussion with people when I don't know a majority of the terms that they are using. I have learned a few terms/definitions from this forum. I have been told that I am a "preterist", but I have also been told that there are different types of preterists. I mainly read the bible. I rarely read commentaries, Christian books, etc. I don't have much interest in man's interpretation of scripture, especially when it doesn't seem to agree with scripture.

Again, I am not really familiar with Zionists. I do agree with some of what I have read about "dispensation" (as far as there being "periods of time"), but have not read more than the top of the page on Wikipedia. But I already thought that the bible strongly suggests periods of time. I do not, however, think that we are waiting for prophecy to be fulfilled. The Bible, imo, is self-fulfilling.

Then you will not find any of this interesting or useful.
If we were to debate here, it would be very off-topic.
If you start or resurrect a relative thread, I would be willing to discuss preterism, and the 'self fulfillment' of Scripture.

 

[Timeline]

I don't mind the discussion, but you will most likely need to explain some terms. However, I will most likely not read a book or any large body of work - outside of the bible. I just find most of it to be a waste of time.

If your topic does deal mostly with the bible, then we can have a good discussion. But if it really doesn't have much to do with the bible, then I will just be a nuisance.

 

[Ukorin]

I don't mind the discussion, but you will most likely need to explain some terms. However, I will most likely not read a book or any large body of work - outside of the bible. I just find most of it to be a waste of time.

If your topic does deal mostly with the bible, then we can have a good discussion. But if it really doesn't have much to do with the bible, then I will just be a nuisance.

Zionism is viewing the physical land and people of Israel as still having a future role in God's plan, and that the land Promise is still yet to be fully fulfilled.
Preterism takes a different hermeneutic (way of interpreting Scripture). There really isn't any way to debate this one with you, because you will not interpret prophetic Scripture in the same way. It will be an endless and fruitless discussion about how we disagree, lol.

 

[Linda70]

Interesting thread! Here are a few "tidbits" I would like to toss in...One is from a Jewish Evangelism site (Jewish Awareness Ministries) called "Jewish Missions and Zionism..."

JEWISH MISSIONS AND ZIONISM..
Posted in Israel's Messenger on January 29, 2010 | one response

by Rev. Mark Robinson

”Death to the Jews!!!” “Kill the traitor!!!”

The vitriolic cries of the mob were a haunting sound in the ears of the journalist. They would have a profound effect on him and the Jewish people which reverberates to this very day.1

In 1897 Theodore Herzl, the journalist, stationed in Vienna, Austria, chaired the first Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland. The program stated, “Zionism seeks for the Jewish people a publicly recognized legally secured homeland in Palestine.”

A number of incidents developed Herzl’s strong Zionistic beliefs and actions. In 1892 he reported on a libel suit in France against the anti-Semitic Edouard Drumont, French journalist and publisher, and his cries at the end of his trial of, “Down with the German Jews! France for Frenchmen.” In the same year Herzl reported on the Panama scandals, involving the failure to build a canal through the Isthmus of Panama, involving virtually no Jewish people, but leading to the introduction of a bill in France to disbar all Jews from holding public office. It garnered 160 votes in the Chamber of Deputies. These were a couple of the incidents that forged his Zionist convictions.2

The final event that motivated Herzl to action was the Dreyfuss affair. Alfred Dreyfuss was a Jewish captain in the French army. In 1894 he was accused of espionage on behalf of Germany. The charges against Dreyfuss were fabricated which was clear to Herzl and many others. Nevertheless, Dreyfuss was convicted and sentenced to exile for life on Devil’s Island. The public denunciation of Dreyfuss and the shouts of “Death to the traitor,” and later, as Herzl recounts it, “Death to the Jews,”3 stirred him in the depths of his soul. Eventually, in 1899, Dreyfuss’ case was retried, and in 1906 he was exonerated and promoted to the rank of major.

It was in 1885 that Nathan Birnbaum introduced the term “Zionism” to designate the movement for the restoration of an independent Jewish state in the area of Palestine. He is believed to be the first to use the term publically at a meeting in Vienna in 1892.4 Theodore Herzl, though, is recognized as the founder of modern day Zionism.

Zionism is simply the belief that the Jewish people have a right to a homeland in the biblically promised land of Israel. It is no more, and no less. One might argue about the size of the promised land, the methods to acquire this land, or a host of other issues. But, in its simplest form, it is the belief that the Jewish people have a right to a homeland in the land known as Israel. With this understanding, one can safely say that God was the first Zionist. And that all Bible believing people should also be Zionists.

Follow the link for the rest of the article.

The other "tidbit" is an article about Progressive Dispensationalism on the Middletown Bible Church website:

Progressive Dispensationalism
Some Observations

1. Its Leaders

1) Craig Blaising, a former Dallas Seminary Professor who is now teaching at Southwestern Baptist Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas; 2) Darrell Bock, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Seminary; 3) Robert Saucy, who taught at Talbot School of Theology (Talbot Seminary). Due to the pioneering work of these and other men, many have entered the progressive fold.

2. Its Books

1) Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church by Blaising and Bock (1992); 2) The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism by Saucy (1993); 3) Progressive Dispensationalism by Blaising and Bock (1993). A wealth of literature, books and articles, for and against Progressive Dispensationalism has been published in the years following.

3. Its Beginnings

[In this paper we shall sometimes refer to Progressive Dispensationalism as PD.]

In 1985 a group met together and launched the Dispensational Study Group. "What has emerged is unprecedented discussion between covenant theologians, historical premillennialists, charismatics, and the dispensationalists who invited them to the table" (Darrell Bock, Christianity Today, Sept. 12, 1994, p. 26). Notice that it was the "dispensationalists" who initiated this dialogue. "We met because some (but not all of us) believed that there are biblical problems with aspects of the older dispensational position. We engaged in the discussion with all these groups as well as ourselves to sift through the evidence. Traditionalists were on the program with us in virtually every year early on" (Bock).1 "PD wants to find common ground with nondispensationalism" (Christianity Today, 9/12/94, p. 28). "The newer dispensationalism wants to bring itself in line with mainstream evangelicalism" (Christianity Today, 9/12/94, p. 28). "PD is made up of evangelicals who are dissatisfied with the dispensationalism of their forefathers and who have met together to change it" (Thomas Ice, A Critical Examination of "Progressive Dispensationalism," Part 1, p. 5).

"The purpose of the study group (which first met in 1986) appears to be to clarify dispensational issues in order to bridge the gap between dispensationalism and covenant theology....it is a sad commentary on the present situation that whereas premillennialism (out of which dispensationalism gradually emerged) arose in America primarily through early Bible conferences held in opposition to the postmillennialism and liberalism of the day, progressive dispensationalism, in following the ecumenical spirit of the times, is seeking common ground with amillennialism" (Manfred Kober, "The Problematic Development of Progressive Dispensationalism", Faith Pulpit, March 1997). In the days of the early Bible conferences, Bible believing men of different persuasions met together in opposition to religious modernism (liberalism) and in defense of the great fundamentals of the faith and with a renewed interest in prophecy in general and the imminent return of Christ in particular. Today Progressive Dispensationalists are meeting with and dialoguing with men of different theological persuasions because of a common opposition to certain traditional teachings of Bible believing dispensationalists and because of some commonly shared, non-dispensational views on the nature of the church and the nature of the kingdom.

4. Its Name— "Progressive Dispensationalism"

What do they mean by the term "PROGRESSIVE"? Bock explains: "The term means that each dispensation is an advance in the program of God and builds in a distinct way on previous dispensations. Thus the progress is NOT a description of how we view ourselves versus other dispensational views" (Bock).2 According to Blaising, the name "progressive dispensationalism" is linked to the progressive relationship of the successive dispensations to one another.

5. Development or Departure?

Is this movement a healthy and helpful development of dispensationalism? Is it a healthy development to take a giant step back in the direction of covenant theology? When does "development" become "departure"? Are the progressives developing dispensationalism or are they departing from dispensationalism? "If one uses an older form of dispensationalism as a standard, then there would be a reasonable basis to question whether or not PD is really a modified form of dispensationalism or whether or not it is closer to a modified form of Covenant Theology, thus not really dispensationalism at all. One current professor at Dallas Seminary who is strongly opposed to this new formulation of dispensationalism has described the issue to me as follows: One has to decide whether or not PD is merely rearranging the furniture in the room (i.e., development of dispensationalism) or whether or not they are removing key pieces of furniture (i.e., abandonment of dispensationalism)" (Thomas Ice, A Critical Examination of Progressive Dispensationalism—Part 1, page 3). The advocates of PD commonly point out that dispensationalism has been modified and developed over the years.3 The implication is that PD is merely a further modification and development of the system, when in actuality it is a radical departure from dispensationalism.

Keith Mathison, a postmillennialist and an outspoken critic and opponent of dispensationalism makes the following accurate observations:

Progressive dispensationalists have moved closer to Reformed theology on a number of doctrines. They now acknowledge that the kingdom has been inaugurated and that there is a present as well as a future aspect of the kingdom. They have also recognized the two-peoples-of-God theory to be unbiblical, which, ironically, brings us to the negative side of progressive dispensationalism.

If the defining doctrine of dispensationalism is the two-peoples-of-God theory, then to reject that theory is to reject dispensationalism itself. "Progressive dispensationalism" is therefore both an encouraging trend and a misleading or confusing title.

In view of genuinely positive developments, how problematic is the name "progressive dispensationalism"? Perhaps an illustration will clarify my concern. Suppose I announced that I am a "progressive Baptist." When asked what that means, I explain that I have rejected believer's baptism by immersion only. I now believe that infant baptism is biblical and that the mode of baptism should be sprinkling or pouring. But I claim to be a progressive Baptist. What would a good Baptist tell me? He would remind me that believer's baptism by immersion only is the essence of what it means to be a Baptist.

Similarly, suppose I have become convinced that Jesus will return after the millennium. Would I be honest to describe myself as a "progressive premillennialist." No. Or what if I have abandoned belief in God? Would I be a progressive theist?

The church suffers too much damage when people do not identify what they really believe. For the sake of accuracy, honesty, and understanding, "progressive dispensationalists" should no longer claim to be dispensational. Traditional dispensationalists would likely concur. Do most dispensational laymen realize that the "dispensationalism" now taught in their seminaries is not the dispensationalism they know? As much as I prefer to see Reformed theology taught in these seminaries, if someone is going to teach nondispensationalism in a dispensational seminary, students and donors should at least be aware of the fact. [Keith Mathison, Dispensationalism--Rightly Dividing the People of God?, pages 135-137.]

 

[Ukorin]

Interesting thread! Here are a few "tidbits" I would like to toss in...One is from a Jewish Evangelism site (Jewish Awareness Ministries) called "Jewish Missions and Zionism..."



The other "tidbit" is an article about Progressive Dispensationalism on the Middletown Bible Church website:

Ty for the article!
This is exactly where I was hoping the topic would go.

What I find in Scripture is that both Dispensationalism and Covenant theology are present, and that they don't contradict as often as the two sides claim they do.

The only areas in which they truly clash are over prophecy,
yet each group has varied interpretations of prophecy amongst themselves anyway.


I see Dispensationalism as having taken two steps forward from the liberal theology of it's day,
but then took one step back by trying to further distance itself from all other forms of theology,
and inadvertently denied some sound doctrine for the sake of differentiation.

It seems that PD takes all of the great progress made by Dispensationalism, and brings it back to the the sound doctrines that of the first 1800 years of the Church.

 

[Linda70]

Ty for the article!
This is exactly where I was hoping the topic would go.

What I find in Scripture is that both Dispensationalism and Covenant theology are present, and that they don't contradict as often as the two sides claim they do.

The only areas in which they truly clash are over prophecy,
yet each group has varied interpretations of prophecy amongst themselves anyway.


I see Dispensationalism as having taken two steps forward from the liberal theology of it's day,
but then took one step back by trying to further distance itself from all other forms of theology,
and inadvertently denied some sound doctrine for the sake of differentiation.

It seems that PD takes all of the great progress made by Dispensationalism, and brings it back to the the sound doctrines that of the first 1800 years of the Church.

I am a "traditional" Dispensationalist and also a Christian Zionist!

Progressive Dispensationalism, according to that how that article defines it, is really not "traditional" Dispensationalism. Actually, PD is not Dispensational at all...but simply "on the edge of Covenant Theology" without being full blown Covenant Theology.

There is only ONE interpretation of prophecy...the normal-literal interpretation. This is the way "traditional" dispensational theology interprets biblical prophecy. Covenant Theology looks for "hidden" meanings of biblical words and spiritualizes biblical prophecy....i.e. "Zion" is taken to mean the church instead of the city Jerusalem. The desert blossoming as a rose (Isaiah 35). is taken as a picture of the present fruitfulness of the gospel instead of a literal future condition on earth. The temple in Ezekiel 40:1-48 is taken as a symbolical representation of the church rather than a literal future temple. By this manner of interpretation (allegorizing and spiritualizing), the events recorded in Revelation-the judgments upon the earth, the wars, the Two Witnesses, the sealing of the 144,000 Israelites, the binding of Satan, and the 1,000 year earthly rule-are viewed symbolically rather than as literal future events.

Zionism, OTOH, is really not a "theology" nor a "doctrine"...it is more of an "ideology". Dispensationalism is not a way of salvation, but a method of interpreting Scripture...PD leans toward Covenant Theology and I really don't believe one could call it "traditional" dispensationalism because of the method of biblical interpretation it uses....the "allegorical" method, whereas "traditional" dispensationalism uses the normal-literal method of biblical interpretation.

 

[djames1958]

Classical Zionism fits both Progressive Dispensationalism, Reformed Theology, and the earliest writings of the Church all the way until Darby.

Darby gave a new interpretation, Dispensationalism, which was popularized by Scofield,
which has dominated the academic and pop culture levels of Christianity for the past few decades.
Ryrie began writing books using this theology, but reexamined his view, and came to what is called 'Progressive Dispensationalism'.

I'm not sure where you got your information, but Ryrie is firmly in the traditional dispensationalist camp. In Dispensationalism, which is a 1990s update of his Dispensationalism Today, he takes Progressive Dispensationalism to task.

The primary trail-blazing proponents of PD are Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising (and Robert Saucy). Traditional dispensationalists think it has gone way to far (and I agree), while Covenant theologians think it is a step in the right direction - which confirms that it is simply moderate covenant theology rather than any real type of dispensationalism.

 

[Ukorin]

I'm not sure where you got your information, but Ryrie is firmly in the traditional dispensationalist camp. In Dispensationalism, which is a 1990s update of his Dispensationalism Today, he takes Progressive Dispensationalism to task.

The primary trail-blazing proponents of PD are Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising (and Robert Saucy). Traditional dispensationalists think it has gone way to far (and I agree), while Covenant theologians think it is a step in the right direction - which confirms that it is simply moderate covenant theology rather than any real type of dispensationalism.

All his recent statements and essays lean progressive. He is the reason I even realized the synergy between Covenant and Dispensational theologies.

His stance may be more conservative than Bock and Blaising, but is not as rigid as his earlier work,
and far distanced from the ultra-dispensationalism which is held highly in Dallas.

---------
As for calling it 'moderate covenant theology' rather than 'progressive dispensationalism', I don't really see the difference.
If it had started being called 'Progressive Covenant Theology' then Dispensationalists would say it was a step in the right direction, and Reformed theologians would say it is not Covenant Theology at all, but simply moderate dispensationalism.

By it's label, it is moving away from traditional Dispensationalism, but in reality it is just getting closer to what is revealed in Scripture.

Unlike Covenant Theology, PD takes the literal interpretation. Unlike traditional Dispensationalism, PD also takes the spiritual interpretation. The principle of dual fulfillment seen throughout Scripture is finally being utilized in a doctrinal format, and formalized.

(John the Baptist was not literally Elijah, was he? And yet Elijah also did physically come at the Mount of Transfiguration)

 

[Ukorin]

The only real conflict between the two theology views are in the areas where one side excludes the other view because they already have an answer.
This comes from using 'either/or' logic. Either one says "this prophecy can only be fulfilled literally", or "this prophecy is being fulfilled spiritually".
The error is that one does not exclude the other. There can be both a literal and spiritual interpretation for a verse, as Jesus proved many times. This 'spiritualization' is actually the basis for the existence of the Church, yet we know that the literal is also in effect because God does not decieve.

 

[Linda70]

The only real conflict between the two theology views are in the areas where one side excludes the other view because they already have an answer.
This comes from using 'either/or' logic. Either one says "this prophecy can only be fulfilled literally", or "this prophecy is being fulfilled spiritually".
The error is that one does not exclude the other. There can be both a literal and spiritual interpretation for a verse, as Jesus proved many times. This 'spiritualization' is actually the basis for the existence of the Church, yet we know that the literal is also in effect because God does not decieve.

Dispensationalism: Consistent Literal Interpretation

What is Literal Interpretation?

Literal interpretation seeks to understand the Bible in its plain, natural, normal sense. It looks for the clear and obvious meaning of a text. God does not want to hide His truth from the believer; He wants to communicate His truth to His own in a very clear way. The believer’s responsibility is to simply take God at His Word. God means what He says and says what He means.

The literal interpreter does not look for hidden meanings in the Bible. Rather, he looks for the obvious sense of the text. The literal interpreter does not seek to read in between the lines, but rather he reads the sacred text in order to determine its plain and simple meaning, in light of the normal meaning of the words, the context and the commonly accepted rules of grammar.

The Allegorical Method

In sharp contrast to literal interpretation is the allegorical method of interpretation. The father of allegorical interpretation was Origen who lived in the third century. Many today still follow his allegorical method of interpretation. Allegorical interpretation involves looking for hidden spiritual meaning which transcends the literal sense of the sacred text.

As an illustration of the allegorical method, consider 1 Samuel 17:40--"And he (David) took his staff in his hand, and chose five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in a shepherd's bag which he had." What is the meaning of these five smooth stones? Imagine one preacher saying, "These five smooth stones symbolize faith, hope, love, joy, peace." This could make a nice five point sermon outline. Somewhere else in the world another preacher gets up in front of his congregation and says, "These five smooth stones represent: courage, strength, perseverance, power, patience." According to the allegorical method, it is the pure imagination of the interpreter that determines the meaning of the text. A person can make it mean whatever he or she wants it to mean.

Ask a dispensationalist what the five smooth stones signify and he would say something like this: "The five smooth stones were just what the text says they were. They were five smooth stones, only one of which was used by David in his sling!

Note: In emphasizing the literal meaning of a text, we are not denying that a text may have many applications. There is one meaning, but there are many applications. The careful Bible teacher needs to make sure that whatever applications he makes are based on the plain, normal, literal sense of the text.

A Helpful Rule

Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The Biblical Research Society, is known for his "Golden Rule of Interpretation":

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic (self-evident or unquestionable) and fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise.
*******************************************************
Were the prophecies of the first coming of Christ "literally" fulfilled? Are there any valid reasons why the prophecies of the Second Coming of Christ will not also be "literally" fulfilled?

 

[KJV1611]

Dispensationalism: Consistent Literal Interpretation

What is Literal Interpretation?

Literal interpretation seeks to understand the Bible in its plain, natural, normal sense. It looks for the clear and obvious meaning of a text. God does not want to hide His truth from the believer; He wants to communicate His truth to His own in a very clear way. The believer’s responsibility is to simply take God at His Word. God means what He says and says what He means.

The literal interpreter does not look for hidden meanings in the Bible. Rather, he looks for the obvious sense of the text. The literal interpreter does not seek to read in between the lines, but rather he reads the sacred text in order to determine its plain and simple meaning, in light of the normal meaning of the words, the context and the commonly accepted rules of grammar.

The Allegorical Method

In sharp contrast to literal interpretation is the allegorical method of interpretation. The father of allegorical interpretation was Origen who lived in the third century. Many today still follow his allegorical method of interpretation. Allegorical interpretation involves looking for hidden spiritual meaning which transcends the literal sense of the sacred text.

As an illustration of the allegorical method, consider 1 Samuel 17:40--"And he (David) took his staff in his hand, and chose five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in a shepherd's bag which he had." What is the meaning of these five smooth stones? Imagine one preacher saying, "These five smooth stones symbolize faith, hope, love, joy, peace." This could make a nice five point sermon outline. Somewhere else in the world another preacher gets up in front of his congregation and says, "These five smooth stones represent: courage, strength, perseverance, power, patience." According to the allegorical method, it is the pure imagination of the interpreter that determines the meaning of the text. A person can make it mean whatever he or she wants it to mean.

Ask a dispensationalist what the five smooth stones signify and he would say something like this: "The five smooth stones were just what the text says they were. They were five smooth stones, only one of which was used by David in his sling!

Note: In emphasizing the literal meaning of a text, we are not denying that a text may have many applications. There is one meaning, but there are many applications. The careful Bible teacher needs to make sure that whatever applications he makes are based on the plain, normal, literal sense of the text.

A Helpful Rule

Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The Biblical Research Society, is known for his "Golden Rule of Interpretation":

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic (self-evident or unquestionable) and fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise.
*******************************************************
Were the prophecies of the first coming of Christ "literally" fulfilled? Are there any valid reasons why the prophecies of the Second Coming of Christ will not also be "literally" fulfilled?

How does the dispensationalist handle verses like this one.

Luke 14:26

If any man come to me, and*hate*not his*father, and*mother, and wife, and children,*

 

[Linda70]

How does the dispensationalist handle verses like this one.

Luke 14:26

If any man come to me, and*hate*not his*father, and*mother, and wife, and children,*

What is the CONTEXT of that verse? You can't just pull one verse out of its context and ask "how does a dispensationalist handle verses like this one". Is that how you interpret Bible verses, KJV1611?

Christ is teaching about discipleship in this passage. The term "hate," as it is used in verse 26, does not mean lack of love; it means that something is rejected as having first place in one's affections or purpose. The disciple of Christ is to put his Master into the exalted position in his life and heart and to reject all others from that position. In comparison to the disciple's love for Christ, his love for all other things should be as hate. It is obvious from other Scriptures that Christ was not commanding that we hate our parents in the sense of disliking them. Christ is not saying we are to dislike our parents, but that our love for Him is to be much more than our love for any one or anything else.

 

[KJV1611]

What is the CONTEXT of that verse? You can't just pull one verse out of its context and ask "how does a dispensationalist handle verses like this one". Is that how you interpret Bible verses, KJV1611?

Christ is teaching about discipleship in this passage. The term "hate," as it is used in verse 26, does not mean lack of love; it means that something is rejected as having first place in one's affections or purpose. The disciple of Christ is to put his Master into the exalted position in his life and heart and to reject all others from that position. In comparison to the disciple's love for Christ, his love for all other things should be as hate. It is obvious from other Scriptures that Christ was not commanding that we hate our parents in the sense of disliking them. Christ is not saying we are to dislike our parents, but that our love for Him is to be much more than our love for any one or anything else.

So you are saying that we are not supposed to take every word literally as the verse states it. Tell me, what dictionary did you get your definition of hate from? I've never seen the word hate mean to put something above another.

 

[Linda70]

So you are saying that we are not supposed to take every word literally as the verse states it. Tell me, what dictionary did you get your definition of hate from? I've never seen the word hate mean to put something above another.

Please quit twisting my words. I am taking that verse in context...not pulling it out of context as you are are doing. The passage is speaking of discipleship (vs. 25-35). Our love for Christ should exceed our "love" for our parents, children, spouse, and even our own life...otherwise we "cannot be Christ's disciple". The word "hate", when all those verses are interpreted in context, does not mean dislike or despise. Use some "common sense".

I got the definition from Websters 1828 Dictionary.

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise. ....David L. Cooper.....This is called the "Golden Rule of Interpretation"